Catholics did not absent themselves from the Protestant service in consequence of the bull of Pope Pius V. This wretched instrument was issued in 11570. Now the decree of the Trentine doctors, which declared the attendances of Catholics at the Protestant service to be unlawful, was promulgated in 1562, eight years before the papal bull was issued; and it is quite clear, that long before its promulgation, the majority of the Roman Catholics used to absent themselves from the Protestant service. See then how unjust is your assertion (page 199), that "the. Romanists generally fre" quented their parish churches till they were for"bidden to do so by the same bull which deposed ❝f their sovereign;" and how baseless all the conclusions are which you draw from it.

66.

You ask me (page 196), "whether I should have "condemned the king and parliament of England, "if they had required the subject to deny the "authority of the Pretender, or the Bourbons, or "Napoleon, or any other open enemy to the "state?"

O Certainly not: Nor should I have condemned Elizabeth, if she had required the most ample and explicit profession of allegiance from her Roman Catholic subjects; or had required from them to deny, in the most ample and explicit terms, allegiance of any kind to the Pope;-or the most ample and explicit denial of the Pope's temporal authority;

J

Dodd's Church History, Vol. II. p. 24, 44, 292. Hist.

Mem. Vol. I. p. 310.

→→→or the most ample and explicit denial of his right to any spiritual authority in this country, that conflicted with the allegiance of subjects to their sovereign, or with any other political, civil or moral Jeld' donder dutys meitai

You then ask me (p. 197), "if the Pope "governed the consciences only of the Romanists ?? -I answer, that, whatever was his authority, he governed their consciences only.

-66

ub

trug. The Jacobin and the Romanist," you say (p. 197), *** were the avowed enemies of England; "both excited the nations of Europe against its ❝osovereign; both were supported by large numbers

of the people, among whom will always be found "thousands and tens of thousands who hate the existing government, whatever be its form, prin"ciple, or excellence."

A

bo Both in my "Historical Memoirs," and my Letters to Dr. Southey, I have acknowledged, with the late Rev. Charles Plowden,* that a few, but only a few Catholics were led astray by this bull and its advocates, from their allegiance.The number of them it is at this time impossible to calculate with any thing like a near approach to precision; but I am confident it was small.

But the Catholics were not as you call them (pЛ197), enemies of England. They remained. firm in their allegiance, true to God, and true to their queen.dk

In his "Remarks on a book intituled Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani": the whole passage is transcribed in the "Historical Memoirs," Vol. I. p. 415.

XV. 5.

Your Justification of the Acts passed in the 13th, 23d, and 27th years of the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, against the Roman Catholics.

1. Let me now ask," (p. 206), thus you interrogate me" can it be considered a religious "persecution?"!

I answer, that it must be considered a réligious persecution.

Was not"-You continue to inquire,→ "the queen justified in passing severe laws against "those, who asserted that she was not a lawful ❝ sovereign; who arrayed against her the religious "principles of one half her people; were not those "who brought in the bulls or mandates of this " avowed political enemy of England rightly con"demned of high treason."

I answer-that Elizabeth was justified in passing severe laws against those, who asserted that she was not a lawful sovereign or who arrayed against her the religious principles of half her people ;—or who brought into this kingdom the bull of Pius, or any other papal bull which was of the same effect, or impeached in the slightest manner the title of the queen. All, who committed these acts were guity of high-treason. But of such acts the Catholics in England were innocent: and I must add, that, according to every divine and human law, these acts should have been proved by legal evidence, against the parties

accused of them, before they were found guilty'; there scarcely is an instance, even one I believe cannot be found,-in which the deed was proved; I will not say by legal, but even by reasonable evidence.

66

3. You say (page 202), "That there would be "again, men, who would be ready to disclaim every tie, and sacrifice life itself, in obedience to "the supposed will of God, in submission to their priesthood, and to their spiritual lord, the Pope:" If you mean, by these words, to insinuate that,→if, UNDER ANY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCES, a similar bull should now be promulgated, and the Catholic subjects of his Majesty required to obey it, their conduct would be such as you suggest, most solemnly aver, that the universal body of the Catholics-that every Catholic-would laugh at such a bull in scorn, and consider it, not as the voice of God, but as the voice of the evil one. I call upon You to mention a single word or deed of any of your Roman Catholic countrymen, that warrants your suggesting such a supposition. I am in perfect astonishment that, in the nineteenth century, so groundless an accusation should be urged.

4.Referring to the passage, which I have cited from my "Historical Memoirs," you say (page 207), "We, the simple, the bigotted, and illiberal

Protestants, who still believe that our ancestors "were men of wisdom, and had sufficient reason to pass their various enactments against the Ro

66

"manists, are curious to know, what epithet is "applied by a modern, candid, liberal and disbigotted Romanist to these bulls. The effect "of the Pope's decrees would have been to plunge "this country into the most fierce and sanguinary "civil war, which this or any other country had ever witnessed. They deposed the sovereign, " and excised treason in the subject. They substi"tuted rebellion for loyalty, and Romanism for religion. The Protestant would perhaps use

strange and uncourteous epithets against them; "they would appear to him savage, shameful, "abominable and detestable. But the liberal "Romanist avoids all those bigotted phrases, and "calls the bulls illaudable ;- yes, they are "illaudable!!! they cannot be quite approved; "on the contrary, they deserved censure. Oh! "spirit of the martyrs !"

Thus You attempt to hold me out to ridicule, and to what is worse.

But, what have I really said of this bull? "Historical Memoirs," I say of the

In my

bull,

"That, it is ever to be condemned and "lamented;

"That, the Pope assumed by it, a right, the "exercise of which Christ had explicitly dis"claimed for himself;

"That, it tended to produce a civil war between "the queen's Protestant and Catholic subjects, "with all the horrors of a disputed succession;